why Black Lives Matter isn't helping flood victims

[CarlosAndSveta 808]

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_democratic.html

Democrat Party was the party of slavery.

Yes, and then the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted and the southern Democrats (Dixiecrats) became republicans and black people started identifying with the Democrat Party.

[floridadave 195]

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_democratic.html

Democrat Party was the party of slavery.

The two major parties flip-flopped platforms over time since the Civic War. In a very simplistic view, the Republicans were the liberals back then and the Democrats were the conservatives. The actual switch in ideologies took a long time. Several sources explain this. If you have the time, here is one source that is typical in explanation:

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Democrats-used-to-be-the-conservative-party-and-Republicans-used-to-be-the-progressive-party

[Penguin_ie 5,997]

**** personal attack and one quoting removed. Stay civil or do not post.

[JayJayH 546]

The two major parties flip-flopped platforms over time since the Civic War. In a very simplistic view, the Republicans were the liberals back then and the Democrats were the conservatives. The actual switch in ideologies took a long time. Several sources explain this. If you have the time, here is one source that is typical in explanation:

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Democrats-used-to-be-the-conservative-party-and-Republicans-used-to-be-the-progressive-party

Yes and no. Ideologically, you could easily argue that the libertarian wing of the Republican party is the most liberal political faction of any size in the U.S. today. The GOP was taken over by the religious right at some point in the past decades, and went from small government to obsessing over what people smoke, say and do in the privacy of their bedrooms. It's hard to argue for small government, while at the same time promoting conversion therapy and prison for pot smokers.

But the traditional mantra of the GOP was never "ban this, ban that" (except for drugs). It has been states rights vs. federal power. For example, Barry Goldwater (as much as I disagree) never campaigned for segregation, but rather against federal involvement. Obviously a miserable failure, drowning the Republican brand in murky waters. Likewise, the gay marriage debate, bathroom debate, abortion debate etc. has never been outright "ban it", but rather "leave it up to the states." The state vs. feds dichotomy is a very common misconception among many liberals today, where the lack of federal regulation is seen as lack of caring.

I'd argue that the Democratic Party has the same fetish for racial issues today as it did in the 60s, but in a different light. That's what identity politics is. The far left wing of the party is no more anti-segregationist than the southern Democrats of the 60s were. Today it's just been renamed "safe spaces." You don't have to be a Trump supporter to see that there is nothing progressive about various progressive movements. http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25748/

"At UCLA, the Afrikan Student Union is insisting upon an “Afrikan Diaspora floor” as well as an “Afro-house.”

“Black students lack spaces where they feel safe and comfortable,” the UCLA demands state. “The Afrikan Diaspora floor is a way for us to connect more to other Black students, the Afrikan Student Union, and the Afro-Am department. The floor should be branded as a safe space for all Black students.”

[floridadave 195]

Yes and no. Ideologically, you could easily argue that the libertarian wing of the Republican party is the most liberal political faction of any size in the U.S. today. The GOP was taken over by the religious right at some point in the past decades, and went from small government to obsessing over what people smoke, say and do in the privacy of their bedrooms. It's hard to argue for small government, while at the same time promoting conversion therapy and prison for pot smokers.

But the traditional mantra of the GOP was never "ban this, ban that" (except for drugs). It has been states rights vs. federal power. For example, Barry Goldwater (as much as I disagree) never campaigned for segregation, but rather against federal involvement. Obviously a miserable failure, drowning the Republican brand in murky waters. Likewise, the gay marriage debate, bathroom debate, abortion debate etc. has never been outright "ban it", but rather "leave it up to the states." The state vs. feds dichotomy is a very common misconception among many liberals today, where the lack of federal regulation is seen as lack of caring.

I'd argue that the Democratic Party has the same fetish for racial issues today as it did in the 60s, but in a different light. That's what identity politics is. The far left wing of the party is no more anti-segregationist than the southern Democrats of the 60s were. Today it's just been renamed "safe spaces." You don't have to be a Trump supporter to see that there is nothing progressive about various progressive movements. http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25748/

"At UCLA, the Afrikan Student Union is insisting upon an “Afrikan Diaspora floor” as well as an “Afro-house.”

“Black students lack spaces where they feel safe and comfortable,” the UCLA demands state. “The Afrikan Diaspora floor is a way for us to connect more to other Black students, the Afrikan Student Union, and the Afro-Am department. The floor should be branded as a safe space for all Black students.”

Thank you for your input. Interesting point of view.

[Póg mo 1,749]

Yes and no. Ideologically, you could easily argue that the libertarian wing of the Republican party is the most liberal political faction of any size in the U.S. today. The GOP was taken over by the religious right at some point in the past decades, and went from small government to obsessing over what people smoke, say and do in the privacy of their bedrooms. It's hard to argue for small government, while at the same time promoting conversion therapy and prison for pot smokers.

But the traditional mantra of the GOP was never "ban this, ban that" (except for drugs). It has been states rights vs. federal power.

States rights are a kind of dog whistle for conservatives. Sorry, but the reason the word United is placed in front of the word States is because it is a country and not a just a couple loosely connected colonies. Also States rights was a originally invoked as a means to defend slavery, and the Republican party for a significant part of its history, was a strong supporter of an activist Federal government. It became anti-federal government as a means to appeal to Dixiecrats who weren't too Happy with Lyndon Johnson and his civil rights act. But never mind history, just carry on with the fake narrative that Democrats are racist.

[JayJayH 546]

States rights are a kind of dog whistle for conservatives. Sorry, but the reason the word United is placed in front of the word States is because it is a country and not a just a couple loosely connected colonies. Also States rights was a originally invoked as a means to defend slavery, and the Republican party for a significant part of its history, was a strong supporter of an activist Federal government. It became anti-federal government as a means to appeal to Dixiecrats who weren't too Happy with Lyndon Johnson and his civil rights act. But never mind history, just carry on with the fake narrative that Democrats are racist.

Not really a dog whistle.

I'd pull my pocket constitution out Khizr Kahn style and ask you if you've ever read the 10th amendment - It lays out federalism pretty well, stating that the federal government holds only those powers delegated to it by the constitution. All other powers are to remain with the states or the people.

Abolishing slavery and the civil rights act were both clearly within the bounds of any sane federal official. Barry Goldwater disagreed and lost the 1964 elections in one of the biggest landslides in history. And then we can argue back and forth what else is within bounds of the powers delegated to the federal government. I tend to take the position that the most sensible approach lies somewhere in between Antonin Scalia and the Progressive movement.

I didn't say "Democrats are racist." But no significant political faction on the right has any policy to bring back segregation. When racial segregation is discussed in the 21st century, it is under the guise of "progressive" safe spaces where people can go to "feel safe" from people of other skin colors.

Edited August 22, 2016 by JayJayH

[Póg mo 1,749]

Not really a dog whistle.

I'd pull my pocket constitution out Khizr Kahn style and ask you if you've ever read the 10th amendment - It lays out federalism pretty well, stating that the federal government holds only those powers delegated to it by the constitution. All other powers are to remain with the states or the people.

If you know of where the Federal government is violating the Constitution, then by all means bring a case to the supreme Court. At any rate, the country is a great deal different than it was when the Constitution was crafted, so expecting things to remain the same is just not tenable in this day and age. The minimum wage was not something even considered, nor marijuana I bet.

Abolishing slavery and the civil rights act were both clearly within the bounds of any sane federal official. Barry Goldwater disagreed and lost the 1964 elections in one of the biggest landslides in history. And then we can argue back and forth what else is within bounds of the powers delegated to the federal government. I tend to take the position that the most sensible approach lies somewhere in between Antonin Scalia and the Progressive movement.

The voting rights act was passed by 2/3 majority, but that hasn't stopped the supreme Court from gutting it, using spurious reasoning, and were it not for courts throwing out laws specifically crafted to target black voters, many people who have once again become disenfranchised.

I didn't say "Democrats are racist." But no significant political faction on the right has any policy to bring back segregation. When racial segregation is discussed in the 21st century, it is under the guise of "progressive" safe spaces where people can go to "feel safe" from people of other skin colors.

They can't, but they are doing their best to make people loose their voting rights. See above.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I don't see requiring an ID as a ploy to take away voting rights. Get a state ID, show it, vote. How simple can it get? You have to have a license to get married, drive, employee others, fly, travel outside the country, etc. Why not prove you are eligible to vote?

They can't, but they are doing their best to make people loose their voting rights. See above.

[lostinblue 1,989]

I don't see requiring an ID as a ploy to take away voting rights. Get a state ID, show it, vote. How simple can it get? You have to have a license to get married, drive, employee others, fly, travel outside the country, etc. Why not prove you are eligible to vote?

Go 10 miles down the road to another bank branch that you normally use.... and they will demand to see ID to cash their own check ... The hardship that was never there.... But in a liberals eyes

[Póg mo 1,749]

I don't see requiring an ID as a ploy to take away voting rights. Get a state ID, show it, vote. How simple can it get? You have to have a license to get married, drive, employee others, fly, travel outside the country, etc. Why not prove you are eligible to vote?

It's a little more complicated than that, but I understand why you may not probably be interested in finding out why.

We can only conclude that the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent, Circuit Court Judge Diana Gribbon Motz wrote, arguing that the lower court failed to adequately consider North Carolinas history with race and voting.

federal_court_strikes_down_north_carolina_voter_id_law_passed_with_racially_discriminatory_intent

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

It's so so "complicated" that I have had one ever since I was 15. Let me guess, WP?

And you don't understand why I may not be interested in finding out, so educate me please.

It's a little more complicated than that, but I understand why you may not probably be interested in finding out why.

[Boiler 46,406]

Hillary had an event locally, the ID needed was green and lots of it.

[Jacque67 7,328]

Errr? Fund raiser....dollars needed....so complex!!!!!!

[yuna628 9,758]

Anything that infringes or may potentially infringe the ability of a person to vote is a no no Constitutionally. The ability to obtain an ID is largely involved in matters of state law, which at times have requirements and measures in place that make it nearly impossible, in some cases, to obtain it. One that has no trouble obtaining an ID, may easily fob those individuals off as a minority not worth caring about, but their rights to vote are every bit as enshrined.. I've provided real world examples before of exactly how this happens, especially to those who are the poor, those who have had difficult circumstances befall them, old, some of our veterans, and most vulnerable - but there is also a rising subset of youth who have come out of fundamentalist sects with literally no documentation to their name (thus the ability to obtain any said documents can be a many years struggle proving futile). There are many that hold concerns about such laws within the conservative and libertarian movements, and are not so willing to embrace such measures with open arms until these problems are rectified. They won't be the loud ones getting themselves on tv every day, but they do make some really sound arguments.

The tradeoff should be if Voter IDs are deemed a necessity, which analysis has shown is patently false, then there should be proper structure in place within the states to ensure that obtaining one is a smooth process in all cases, thereby ensuring no one's right to vote is suppressed. Fix the problems first before compounding them.